[governance] Strangeness in the IGF programme

[Milton L Mueller]

Kudos to our MAG members for coalescing around the "key messages" theme. I understand that CS and governments have been working together on this. 
Jeanette's caution about making the entire IGF into a strenuous competition to get your pet "key message" adopted is a real concern. But in response to her observation...

>whiile outputs in the form of messages may increase the relevance of
>events at the IGF, we should be sensitive to the risk that they might
>alter the dynamics of the discussions.

...I was thinking back on my experience with various IGF main sessions, and there have been very few discussions there that had _any_ dynamics, much less positive ones. 

Too many main sessions discussions, and even many workshop discussions, are flaccid, static presentations, with little focused engagement among the s-s-s-stakeholders (there, I said it. yak), they move in an unfocused manner from one issue to another. I suspect that the possibility (or threat?) of something morphing into a "key message" would concentrate people's minds. 

My fear is that key messages will end up being fluffy teddy-bear messages that no one can disagree with. But the effort to strive for meaningful ones could be interesting.  
--MM

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t