[IGFmaglist] Overarching theme and workshop evaluation text

[Paul Wilson]

Thanks for the reply Fiona.

> The bulk of the edits seem stylistic versus substantive and for those I'd suggest we defer to the Chair and Secretariat in terms of making the final call.  On the matters of substantive edits or new suggestions you propose, I don't recall any of this being discussed in the small group or by the full MAG.  As a matter of process, the document was deemed stable to get to this point so at some point we need to collectively refrain from editing given the timing constraints to get this out.  

Indeed, good point, and I did apologise for the late reply.  If it is too late, then I accept that of course.

> 
> I do offer the following thoughts on what it seemed to me to be the three new suggestions 

And let me offer a few explanations.

> 
> - new proposed requirement that clear specifies that what is meant by "contact details of organizers" includes country of nationality, residence and employment of all individuals.  While some standardization might be useful I'm not sure what is accomplished in differentiating country of nationality and residency

I was responding here to Towela's valid concern about the meaning of "city/country".  The ambiguity can be easily addressed by simply asking separately for countries of nationality and residence, and I suggest employment (or employer).  This extra information will resolve the ambiguity and allow a clearer judgment of whether a candidate does contribute to geographic/economic diversity.

> 
> - new proposed requirement to provide speaker contact details specifically email addresses or phone contact.  I'm not sure what the purpose of the MAG collecting this information would be.  Are we going to call people to confirm they have actually been contacted?  Are their privacy issues with sharing such material?

There were plenty of concerns expressed during the MAG meeting (and before) about proposals which include speakers who have not even been invited.  To say firstly that proposers MUST specify whether someone is proposed, invited or confirmed, and then also to require contact details should be sufficient I think to overcome this concern.  The possibility of contact being made with speakers would provide incentive for honest answers I suggest.

> 
> -  limiting individuals participation in no more than 5 IGF sessions.  While I don't have an issue with this sort of limitation as a tool to promote diversity, this we never discussed so the MAG as a whole needs to carefully consider and reflect.  Do we want this principle?  Is 5 the correct number?  If the MAG does agree to adopt this then further discussion is needed about how to operationalize compliance.  You propose that individuals would be contacted if they appear more than 5 times.  Who would be responsible for making that determination and then contacting people?

Agree, this was not raised at the last meeting.  However it is a concern I have also heard before, and I have suggested a means to address it.  Only a suggestion.

Paul