[Mmwg] IGF workshops

[Adam Peake]

Milton, thanks.

Couple of weeks ago Avri asked some questions about criteria for 
accepting workshops 
<http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/mmwg/2006-May/000450.html>, 
I'm following up on that.

Right now there's no IGF advisory group outreach on this.  This is 
just me asking so I can better understand what people are thinking 
about the workshops.


>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?


Main four agenda themes <http://www.intgovforum.org/table.htm> were 
picked up from what the MAG collectively thought to be the issues 
most commonly raised in consultations and contributions 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Summary%20of%20discussions.htm>.  There 
will be a call for contributions on specific themes and sub-themes, 
see <http://www.intgovforum.org/athens_outline.htm> (at the moment I 
do not know more than is written there.)

As no one responded (substance) to Avri's questions about criteria 
for workshops, I picked up Bertand's, which to me seem a pretty good 
starting point.


>  >>> 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.


Good question -- Perhaps just drop reference to any paragraphs and 
refer to the IG section of the Tunis Agenda (incidentally... paras 
29-82).


>  >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?


I am not trying to get any items excluded.  Some MAG members would 
like the number of workshops limited. We're discussing that now.

I think asking why a workshop should be included in the first IGF is 
reasonable.  MAG may need to prioritize, I believe that's part of the 
MAGs mandate from the secretary general.


>  >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,


Don't know what you mean.


>merge proposals it considers
>similar,


I think that might happen. If there are many proposals for workshops 
on the same/similar/complementary issues, then having people work 
together, creating a dialogue would be sensible.


>take ideas proposed by one group and hand them to another that
>it likes better?


No.


>  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.


Right. I would like MAG to say we will publish and will offer 
webspace and will invite people to set-up/join lists (just my 
opinion, we'll see.)


>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.


My hope/opinion is if some group submits a workshop proposal, and 
it's within some general scope, we should try to encourage dialogue 
around that issue. Information about the workshop should be made 
available so other people can see it, list(s) should be set up so 
people can join in discussions. Some will be able to meet in Athens 
and discuss the issue (and others in Athens might also get enthused 
and join). There will be some remote participation so that those not 
able to travel will not be totally excluded, and record of progress 
should be maintained. Then after Athens discussion continues online, 
develops (or withers away, can expect some ideas won't flourish.) 
This kind of thing --enabling dialogue-- is what I understand the IGF 
to be about (broadly).  But just my view. Not that of the MAG (as far 
as I'm aware.)


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


Again, this is just me asking.  I'd like to hear ideas about how the 
MAG can make a call for workshops proposals.

Thanks,

Adam