CCWG on Internet Governance Singapore Sessions Structure
Summary of 1st call input by Bill Drake:
Meeting Structure:
1. Get it started by simply laying our cards on the table to prompt subsequent discussion with the audience. 3 topics (or just 2?) to be addressed in turn by representatives of each of the groups participating in the CCWG, so that all groups are incentivized to internally agree a clear position statement and share it with their colleagues (even if it’s just some of us think x, but others think y). What we shouldn’t do is have a discussion that is skewed toward just the more ardent and consistent participants, so equal time allotted for statements from ASO, ccNSO, BC, IPC, ISPC, NCUC, NPOC, RrSG, RySG, At Large, GAC, and SSAC (unless some don’t wish to avail themselves of the opportunity on each of the 3 topics).
2. If all 12 reps do desire to speak to all 3 topics and we want to preserve at least 30 of the 90 minutes for open dialogue with the audience, then these statements obviously would have to be very concise indeed, @ 1 ½ minutes a pop for a total of @ 5 minutes per group. If we want more time for open floor discussion then compress even more to 1 minute each, basically just opening statements of bottom lines; or else do just 2 topics x 2.5 min per. Again, if some groups choose not to speak to a given topic then we get a little more wiggle room.
3. The topics/questions would need to be specific enough to prompt clear and concise position statements, rather than being general invitations to wander around in generalities, off topic, or unspoken agendas. Moreover, specificity would facilitate comparisons—I and I would guess at least some other folks would like to come away knowing that group a) favors/thinks x on topic 1 whereas group b) favors/thinks y on topic 1, and so on down the line. Too often progress in discussions is impeded by a lack of clearly stated and understood positions, so we end up talking epiphenomenally. The community would be better served if we pin down our precise areas of (dis)agreement so we can then work toward identifying compromises, or at least agreement to disagree on x but try to expand the zone of agreement on y.
4. My view—which became the source of some debate on the call—is that in selecting the topics, it’d be desirable to get input from as many CCWG groups as possible, rather than have the planning team pick and propose them to the list. A number of groups were not represented on the call, and in any event quickly wordsmithing on the phone is generally less effective than doing it asynchronously online.
