[IRP] IRP Statement to Open Consultation for IGF 2010

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl
Mon Jan 11 13:24:34 EET 2010

Le 11/01/2010 11:29, M I Franklin a ?crit :
> Dear All
> Thanks Lisa for these comments.
> Anyone else have anything to add?
> Cheers
> MF
> --On 08 January 2010 11:30 +0000 Lisa Horner 
> <lisa at global-partners.co.uk> wrote:
>> Thanks for taking the lead with this Marianne.  Some very quick notes
>> below...would be good to hear people's thoughts and have a discussion
>> about the options...
>> 1) Contributions that take stock of last year's IGF in Sharm el Sheikh
>> - Overall, the meeting was well organized. I think things have improved
>> each year.

Improved yes - definitely. Considering the resources which were 
available, I am amazed at how *well* it went. The IGF is effectively 
running on a shoestring budget, and the volunteer group running the 
operations have to be commended for how good a job they did. I saw them 
work late at night each day, and early in the morning too. Well done to 

>> - Remote participation seemed to work well.  However, workshop
>> organizers weren't given much support on how to use it properly and
>> technicians weren't always on hand.  More information in advance would
>> be useful.

IMHO the IGF is suffering from lack of resources. We missed out on full 
workshop remote participation because (1) nowhere was there a document 
entitled "remote participation in Sharm el Sheikh - how to set it up" 
detailing software, processes etc., and (2) no technicians were at hand 
to explain how things worked.
I am sorry to say that to this date, the experience I had chairing the 
workshop I chaired was the most DIY job I've *ever* had to do in any 
conference. Considering the importance and significance of the subjects 
discussed, this is deplorable, and the only way in the future is to have 
more dedicated staff to run those things.

>> - Discussions, especially in plenary, seemed to be distracted by the
>> issue of whether the IGF should continue, and if so, how. (does anyone
>> have an update on the status of those discussions?)
>> - Links between the main sessions and the workshops still weren't great.

Indeed - it often looked as though there was no link whatsoever - even 
two separate conferences taking place side by side.

Can I add that I completely agree with Lisa's other points.

Warmest regards,


Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD

More information about the IRP mailing list