[Mmwg] IGF workshops

[Milton Mueller]

Adam: A good start. A few comments below.

A meta comment: Bertrand's criteria were designed to be for the _main
Forum agenda_. If you are now applying the same criteria to mere
workshops, what criteria were used to establish main agenda items, and
how are workshops different from main agenda items? 

>>> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 6/6/2006 8:07 AM >>>
>c.  How it is in conformity with the Tunis Agenda  in terms of 
>substance, particularly in reference to para. 34 to 54;

Is there some reason why these paragraphs were selected? In my opinion,
it should be paragraphs 29- 70, inclusive. Some of the most importance
substantive paragraphs are 55-70. 

>f.  Why should this issue should be addressed in the first annual 
>meeting of the Forum rather than in subsequent ones;

This criterion does not seem appropriate for workshops. There is room
for far more workshops than agenda items and so the fact that it is the
first  Forum doesn't have as much weight. 

There should be some guidance as to how you want the proposed workshop
topics to relate to the main agenda. Are you trying to get items
excluded or overlooked from the main agenda, items that supplement the
main agenda, what? 

>g. A brief description about the conveners of the workshop, with 
>particular emphasis on the multi-stakeholder nature of the proposal 
>and why they are appropriate to lead on this issue;

A good criterion. But you should clarify whether the Secretariat/MAG
will fiddle with the program of proposals, merge proposals it considers
similar, take ideas proposed by one group and hand them to another that
it likes better? Perhaps somewhat impolite questions, but realistic
ones, nonetheless.

>What information should be in the call (announcement requesting 
>workshops) the advisory group publishes?
>
>1. Obviously a deadline.
>
>2. Offer to publish all workshop proposals on the IGF website 

Offer? I would say, REQUIRE all to be published. This is something I
cannot emphasize too strongly. You cannot ask people to play a game in
which there is one set of rules for insiders and another set for
everyone else. Either everyone one submits proposals on the same terms
and is put into the same transparent process or the whole thing lacks
legitimacy. 

>invite other organizations/individuals interested in the proposal to 
>(for example) comment, join a mailing list to participate in 
>developing the proposal and to continue discussion whether or not the

>proposal is accepted as a full workshop in Athens.

Some good ideas here, but isn't this getting a bit elaborate for just a
workshop? It seems that this kind of a process should be used to develop
the main agenda. 

Anyway, I like the idea of a channel for public comment about
proposals. The rest seems a bit heavy for workshops.