[IGFmaglist] MAG MEMEBRS AS SPEAKERS / MODERATORS / REMOTE MODERATORS ON MAIN SESSIONS
William Drake
wjdrake at gmail.com
Wed Jul 23 09:38:02 EDT 2014
Hi Virat
Thanks for this.
On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Bhatia, Virat <virat.bhatia at intl.att.com> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Some very good contributions from MAG members coming in with their views and recollections of the February meeting / discussions of previous meetings. Thanks.
>
> 1. We are 5 weeks from the IGF and need clear decisions and guidelines on the participation of MAG members in workshops and main sessions, both as speakers and moderators. Let’s remind ourselves that the MAG in 2014 has taken substantive steps to comply with the earlier principles of avoiding too much exposure for MAG members at the IGF sessions.
>
> Based on the February meetings (and various notes), it is clear that the MAG had decided not to file any workshops as MAG members; limit workshops from any organisations (including those organisations affiliated to MAG members) to a max of 3; limit MAG members exposure on workshops as speakers or moderators to a maximum of 3; and recuse ourselves from scoring workshops submitted by organisations affiliated to that particular MAG member, or ones on which MAG members have been invited to as speakers. So far no variance has been pointed out in these decisions of February 2014, and it seems everyone has complied.
>
The Feb. report states, "MAG members will not submit proposals but institutions associated with the MAG member are not prohibited.” And members know to recuse themselves from evaluating workshops they’re speaking in. But I don’t recall a discussion or agreement about limiting MAG members’ participation in workshops to 3. Insofar as there are probably somewhere upwards of 500 workshop speakers it’s not clear what the problem would be with someone’s name occurring 4 times instead of 3 etc. I would think the point is for members to exercise prudence and not be all over the place, as has often occurred in the past.
> 2. Where main sessions are concerned, there was no discussion or restriction for members to appear either as speakers or moderators. Further no distinction was sought to be made with regards to MAG members’ role as a speaker vis-á-vis a moderator / remote moderator on main sessions.
>
I don’t recall this either, although one would think the case for limitations on main sessions is much stronger than it is with respect to workshops. That said, trying to adopt a hard and fast rule at this late date, especially when it is summer for many people and participation seems lower/slower than usual, may not be feasible or necessary. Again, I’d suggest that we exercise prudence as a general matter but recognize that exceptions may well be justified at times, such as in the case of the main session you’re working on. I don’t imagine anyone would have a problem with the speakers you mentioned, rather the point would be to try to avoid the optic of “usual suspects/insiders” (especially lead facilitators) playing key roles unless there’s really a compelling reason, no?
Best
Bill
> The selection of the workshops and planning for the main sessions has continued, based on the above understanding, since February 2014.
>
> The invitations/offers to/by MAG members to speak or to moderate or remote moderate on the main sessions, is purely merit based. It is linked to their representation of a particular stakeholder group and/ or subject matter expertise and/ or region (developing country, etc.), and need for gender balance. Several of them are relatively new or first-timers.
>
> 3. If a different decision from the one made in February now needs to be implemented (with regard to MAG members in any role on main sessions), then we need to clearly articulate those with substantive reasons. We should not leave MAG members who will be performing these roles, in any doubt, that their appearance in some way violates an unspoken principle or guideline. That would be unfair and the organizers.
>
> 4. Personally, I support a limit of 1 main session and 3 workshops maximum. In fact we should think of imposing a limit of a maximum of 1 main session even on non-MAG speakers or else it would turn out to be “same old of the same old”. But that’s a different discussion.
>
> As full disclosure I am not a speaker, moderator or remote moderator in any main session. However the main session titled “Policies Enabling Access, Growth and Development on the Internet”, has 2 MAG members (SME from Egypt and civil society / academia from China) as speakers and a young lady from Fiji as remote moderator. I personally believe this is valuable for IGF and entirely appropriate exposure for them.
>
> 5. However, if as a group (MAG), we decide on a different set of principles regarding the role of MAG members on main sessions, then let’s discuss that now and based on those, we can make appropriate changes.
>
> My personal views apart, I am perfectly willing to work with whatever the group decides.
>
> In summary, a proposal for a limit of up to 3 workshops and 1 main session (maximum) for any MAG member, as speakers, or a moderator or a remote moderator.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Virat Bhatia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 12:18 AM
> To: Carolina Aguerre
> Cc: igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Deadline for completion of main sessions.
>
> I want to come back in on this topic as my notes are just little different, but that may be just my internal note taking.
>
> I agree we didn't specifically discuss MAG members as moderators in main sessions, but I still think that is a good philosophy, as noted in my earlier email. IN GENERAL, it is hard to be the coach and mentor on the side, and take the primary moderator role in a main session. Main sessions are the most highly visible in the program, and in the past, I have noted, and did raise concern about too much MAG visibility in the main sessions in moderators, in particular.
>
> But I also do not recall that we said that MAG members should not be panelists, if invited. I do think that we should be careful not to have too many MAG members on main sessions, or on any particular session.
>
> There is a great difference between moderating a session, and speaking on a session, whether main session or workshop.
>
> However, in some of the workshops, MAG members happen to be the SME on particular topics, such as those on the Inter regional track, or on the sessions on Enhanced Cooperation/CSTD experience, for instance.
>
> In other sessions, MAG members are invited as far as I can tell by the organizer because they are an SME, having nothing to do with being a MAG member.
> is that is what you are referencing, Virat?
>
> As I noted in my earlier post, there will be some exceptions.
>
> And in the interest of disclosure:
> I have also accepted a speaking role in one panel and a co -moderator role in another, while trying to keep the number to no more than 3.
>
> here is what I remembered differently:I thought we set a limit of no more than 3 workshops from any particular organization, not just MAG affiliated organizations. I think I led on that proposal, and that was certainly my intent when I made the proposal. Some organizations submitted 10, 15, 17 different workshops in 2013, and not all were affiliated with MAG members. My purpose on that ceiling was to ensure that we could have more diversity of workshop applicants from newcomers. So, just to restate what I think I said, and why I said it.
>
> Our goal is a well prepared, well organized, effective and meaningful program, and one that truly is meeting the needs of the attendees. With that commonality of purpose, I am sure we can work through what makes sense, what is balanced for the audience/participant purposes, and for the goal of the best IGF ever.
>
> M
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 18, 2014, at 3:28 PM, "Carolina Aguerre" <carolina at lactld.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues:
> With respect to Bill's question, I also remember the MAG's discussions at the meeting in February along Virat's 4 lines.
>
> On another note, for those who are not in the IANA main session listserv, we have amended the title to incorporate the discussion on ICANNs accountability process which is tied to the transition of the stewardship over the IANA functions. It now stands as: "IANA functions: NTIA's stewardship transition and ICANN's accountability process". The title adjustment of this main session will be reflected accordingly in the schedule and the Secretariat is already aware.
> Thanks,
> Best regards.
> Carolina
>
>
>
> On 18/07/2014 03:05 p.m., Bhatia, Virat wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Good question. This is what I remember of the discussion.
>
> I think it was agreed that MAG members should not file workshops of their own (conflict of interest);
> There should be a limit on the number of workshops that their own organisations file - max 3 (avoid domination);
> It would be appropriate for MAG member to recuse themselves in rating workshops where they have been invited as speakers / filed by their organisations (again conflict of interest);
> MAG members should not dominate the session by themselves and should encourage / mentor others.
> I do not remember any discussion regarding a prohibition on a MAG member appearing on a main session or moderating one. For the sake of full disclosure, let me state that unlike several previous IGFs I am not appearing as a panelist or moderator in any of the main session in 2014. However two MAG members from developing countries – one from small business (Egypt) and another from civil society (China) have been invited as speakers in the main session on Access and Development.
>
> My personal philosophy apart, if the secretariat or any other MAG member can remember that a decision prohibiting MAG members against appearing as speakers or moderators on a main session, was agreed to, then they should flag it, and we can proceed accordingly. If that is the case then I certainly stand corrected.
>
> Trust this is helpful.
>
> Regards
>
> Virat Bhatia
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: William Drake [mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 7:05 PM
> To: Chengetai Masango
> Cc: Bhatia, Virat; MAG-public
> Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] Deadline for completion of main sessions.
>
> Hi
>
> Another basic design question, in keeping with some of the prior conversational threads this year: Are we in agreement that MAG members should not be main session moderators or panelists unless there’s really nobody else who can be identified who is optimal for the tasks?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Jul 18, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Chengetai Masango <CMASANGO at unog.ch> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Virat,
>
>
>
>
> Two questions.
>
> 1. Under the section that says “Description / Agenda / Questions” , is there a word limit? Should there be one for the sake of consistency. Some documents can be very descriptive and others very short. Can we find maximum word limit for the description / agenda, and then list the 5-6 questions (maximum I suppose) under that description - 200 words , 300 words?
>
> Lets say 250 words.
>
>
>
>
> 2. Is the host country providing chairs for every main session? And what is the specific role that chairs would play different from the moderator and the panelist?
>
> We have always had chairs provided by the host country for the main sessions. Their involvement varies from simply opening and closing the session (handing it off to the moderators in-between ), to having opening remarks, introducing the session and summing up the discussion at the end.
>
> Each facilitator will have a chance to coordinate with the Chair and Secretariat to find what is most suitable depending on the arrangement of the session, the Chair’s experience and expertise etc..
>
>
>
> Some idea on how session would play out vis-á-vis the chair would help structure the session.
>
> Regards
> Virat
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chengetai
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Chengetai Masango
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 7:26 PM
> To: Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> Subject: [IGFmaglist] Deadline for completion of main sessions.
>
> Dear All,
>
> The Secretariat suggests Monday, 4 August as the absolute deadline for the completion of the organization of the main sessions (confirmed speakers etc.). This will enable us to make sure the correct information is available in any printed material or electronic media for the IGF2014 meeting.
>
> Please find attached a template for submission of the final session information.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Chengetai
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
> ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>
> --
> <Sign_CarolinaAguerre.jpg>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140723/3547f40d/attachment.htm>
More information about the Igfmaglist
mailing list