(The following is a basic copy of a message I sent to another list)

Hi,

Yes, the issue with main sessions is still open and a touch confusing.
After spending a day and half finding our way to a list of workshops we
started on the Main session plan.  A quick explanation on how we got to
the list of workshops while I am at it.

- the top ranked 60 were automatically in.
- the next 10 were in unless someone had a reason for them not being
in.  I think in the end they may have all ended up in, though I am not
positive about 1 of them.  Will need to check notes and final lists to
be sure.
- for the next 30, it was a balancing process.  Based on the various
proportions, e.g. previous organizer : new organizer,  or developed
nation : developing, same old panel : other format, same old topic : new
topic, stakeholder group : other stakeholder groups, &c. MAG members had
to champion a session on the balancing perspective ( a blanket
acceptance of all sessions being a good sessions was made the chair)
for it to be considered further.  We then went through them in a
detailed sort of way trying to balance.  It took 2 passes through a list
of nominated sessions to come to the 100 selected.  The rest of workshop
sessions are filled by open fora, dynamic coalition (DC), best practice
fora (BPF), and the intersessional work.

We also spent a fair amount of time of micromanaging, deciding whether
someone needed 90 minutes, 60 minutes or a flash.  Some of us objected
to this sillyness, but many others of us  felt the MAG was too important
not to know better about how much time a session should consume.  We
were a program committee after all. Bah, humbug!

(re, when the final list will be posted, don't know for sure but expect
soon)

Re the intersessional work,

This is being worked in response to CSTD recommendations on IGF
Improvements, there is a an open team of MAG members and others working
on this effort (I am one of the coordinators, but have been a passive
coordinator so far only taking on activities Constance made me get
involved in).  It was slow to get going.  At this point the call is
coming out in the next day or so.  Basically using the working group
(WG) concept that is borrowed from many institutions and has been
modified for BPF, we will first

●      Launch public call for background contributions on the theme of
“/Policy Options for Connecting the Next Billion/”. Contributions will
be gathered and ultimately incorporated in the output through an
iterative process.

&c.

The call should be out shortly, a draft from 22 May is attached. i
have until the end of today to comment.  There was a lunch conversation
on the draft.

Re The origin of the main session schedule

In terms of main sessions, a self selected ad-hoc subgroup had met
during lunch on day 2 and set up a schedule that includes a half day on
IGF @ 10  and a full day dedicated to WSIS+10 (3 main session slots).
Therefore , when considering pre-session, starting and closing ceremony
left (3 full session), 2 full sessions (4 hemisessions) were left for
substantive issues.

It seems we were going to invite the President of the General Assembly
(PGA) and needed to dedicate that much time to WSIS   If the PGA rejects
the idea, then we will get 1 thematic session back.

Re WSIS session:

Part of what is playing out was act 3 in the WSIS Continuation stage.
Starting in CSTD (which I did not attend), continuing through the 2
weeks of ITU Council (which I did attend) and coming into IGF was
a bit successful but mostly not.  ITU wanted to organize a
multistakeholder consultation on WSIS but was not allowed to by the
members states.  So now IGF was being used by those who want a
consultation on the future of WSIS.  Last stop before NYC.   And the
largest most diverse of group of participants is to be found in IGF 2015.
So if the PGA, it will be Denmark I believe,  is willing to come to the
IGF for consultations, there will be a full day of consultations in Brazil.

Re IGF @ 10

Since the UNGA is going to decide on IGF's continuing fate this year,
that seemed necessary to most all of us thought it a reasonable bit of
scheduling.  Some think it should have more time.

Re the  remaining 2 main session slots,  we were given a list and each
given a chance to argue to 2 topics on the list.  I am not sure I
remember the whole list, but it included

- net neutrality
- internet economy
- human rights
- IANA stuff
- ... (couple more i did not write them down)

In any case there was a supported recommendation that those sitting in
the room should not be deciding this on our own and that we should poll
the community.   In the end the chair decided those of us in the MAG
that championed a particular theme should work on a brief description
and we should put them out  for discussion.

I may think of more, but this is it for pre-breakfast mind-dump on a
holiday morning of a day when I have a paper to finish a draft of.
Happy to answer questions if I can.

avri


Note: on having ATTACHED a file, do not know where it could be found
online.  Might be able to find it on line, but did not want to spend the
time looking for it.  So am including the same attachment I included in
the original note I am copying.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com