[Evolintgov2014] [IGFmaglist] IGF Main Session - Evolution of IG Ecosystem-Update

[Subi Chaturvedi]

Bill I am glad that we are in agreement then. All your suggestions have
duly incorporated.  And that is indeed the process followed. Respectfully,
I disagree with your statement that any attempt is being made to do this in
a manner which is top down. And it is unfair to constantly claim otherwise.
All of us have multiple things to do and we're all doing this voluntarily.
Yet we have neither discouraged any member from contributing nor have we
ignored any inputs. I am aware of your immense expertise and contribution
in this space. And we're all still learning. But this doesn't help. All
constructive inputs are welcome. Like the IGF we do not want the IGF MAG to
remain a decision making platform for a select few and by a select few.
This would only result in a chilling effect for new MAG members, who are
trying their best to contribute and create. It has been a constant effort
to divest the aura of a club.

We have sent out multiple calls for inputs and suggestions, invites to join
calls. And when inputs have been received they have all been incorporated
and responded to. You asked us to stop inviting speakers after our initial
calls for specific names remained unresponded to, we did exactly that.
 Sent out a fresh call again for inputs.

The people you have listed are indeed the people who have been approached
as speakers. Geoff Huston from the technical community is a new and welcome
addition. I do not have his contact details would be grateful if either you
or Paul can connect us with him.

You will recall my multiple emails on this list for specific inputs and
threads and for seeking contact details including email ids and contact
details of all the speakers, volunteers are recommending.

Every single suggestion has been incorporated received from all MAG
volunteers working on this session.

Jeremy's emails seem to be bouncing back. Would be grateful if you can
provide us an alternative mail. We have reached out to him multiple times
at      jeremy at ciroap.org

Thank you again for actively contributing on this session. I look forward
to any inputs that you might have further to make this session better and
more meaningful.

regards

Subi



On 8 August 2014 13:56, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Subi
>
> On Aug 8, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Subi Chaturvedi <subichaturvedi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> This year as MAG members we then volunteered through a doodle poll for the
> mains on which we wished to contribute more actively than others.
>
> Every session then had ranging from 1- 2 and sometimes 4 co-leads from
> amongst MAG members.
>
> With about 16-18 volunteers per session.
>
> Over several emails on the MAG list and individual calls and emails,
> inputs have been contributed. Every main has then gone on to
> organically synthesise these inputs. Some through a single mail and others
> through a series of continuous engagements. The water is being
> carried across different mains who have volunteered to coherently
> assimilate inputs received.
>
> Once a call for inputs is put out regarding specific requests the
> co-leads generally wait within reason for specific inputs and specific
> threads and then for the purpose of delivery and operationalisation of
> actual logistical work  move the work along.
>
>
> The problem here is what 'move the work along' means.  With respect to
> inviting panelists, the consistent, standard practice of the MAG over the
> past decade has been that the lead facilitators keep a running track of the
> list of suggested names (actually, I had to step in and do that here), pose
> choices to the group, people weigh in and the group reaches consensus, and
> then the facilitators reach out to speakers and keep the list continuously
> informed as to the status—who’s accepted or not, what decision might need
> to be made accordingly. No collective decision to change these
> long-standing transparent and inclusive procedures was taken.  But it seems
> that your model is that people provide input and then the two first moving
> facilitators go off and make the decisions, often informing the group only
> when pestered for answers.  This is really just not how it works, sorry.
>
> There are a number of outstanding choices to be made in filling out the
> panels.  Suggestions have been made by participants.  Let’s please follow
> the long-standing practice in making decisions from here.
>
> I reiterate for reference my suggestions of Jeanette and Samantha
> Dickinson as moderators, Larry Strickling (govt) and Geoff Huston (TC) for
> the ecosystem panel, and Jeremy Malcolm or Adam Peake (CS) for the IGF
> panel.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/evolintgov2014_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140808/da550f62/attachment.htm>