[Mmwg] IGF workshops

[Milton Mueller]

>>> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> 5/31/2006 1:20 PM >>>

>Here I disagree. While I see that it is much more difficult for CS to

>organize multi stakeholder workshops, I do think that IGF workshops 
>should be different from, say, a CPSR conference. 

Of course! IGF workshops should not be advocacy forums limited to one
view. 

But....Will this principle be applied fairly and even-handedly? 

>For me, the forum is the space where we cultivate multi 
>stakeholder approaches, and this should show in the official 
>format of its sections. (Side events can 
>still be done in a different format, no problem with that.)

The issue is not whether the event should be MSH in approach, the issue
is how you _define and apply_ criteria related to MSH participation, and
content. 

If you can define clear, practically feasible, objective,
non-manipulable ways of determining whether a proposal has MSH
participation and "multiple points of view" etc. then do it!  All I am
saying is that it's easy to say, but in practice, such a criterion could
also easily be turned into a mechanism for blocking proposals that a
particular MAG faction doesn't like. 

I say this because I've played this game with USG and other govts many
times. You invite them to talk about an issue on which there is
disagreement or controversy. They turn you down because they fear their
arguments won't hold up very well in an open public forum, or because
they would prefer not to have that issue problematized or discussed at
all. 

I am just issuing cautions. Given the highly politicized nature of hte
MAG now, we should not go into a discussion of workshop criteria
naively. We have to be aware of how they might be applied and
(mis)used.

However, as Avri was probably implying in her first message, a fairly
applied "multiple sides" criterion would be good.  Sorry if my comments
seemed to apply otherwise.